Обсуждение: Rename synchronous_standby_names?
Hi, Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is not *only* a list of names anymore. synchronous_standby_config? synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
> not *only* a list of names anymore.
> synchronous_standby_config?
> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
I could get behind renaming it to synchronous_standby_config ...
regards, tom lane
On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is > not *only* a list of names anymore. > > synchronous_standby_config? > synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave it as is. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.
synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave it as is.
+1
David J.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >>> >>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is >>> not *only* a list of names anymore. >>> >>> synchronous_standby_config? >>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? >> >> >> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave >> it as is. > > > +1 +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that effort. -- Michael
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut >> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >>>> >>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is >>>> not *only* a list of names anymore. >>>> >>>> synchronous_standby_config? >>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? >>> >>> >>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave >>> it as is. >> >> >> +1 > > +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync > that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that > effort. +1 -- Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada
On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut >> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >>>> >>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is >>>> not *only* a list of names anymore. >>>> >>>> synchronous_standby_config? >>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? >>> >>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave >>> it as is. >> >> +1 > > +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync > that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that > effort. We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica. I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it. -- Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> >> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is >> not *only* a list of names anymore. >> >> synchronous_standby_config? >> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? > > > If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave it > as is. +1, emphatically. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
At Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:52:31 +0200, Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote in <5751454F.6020607@2ndquadrant.fr> > On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston > > <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut > >> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is > >>>> not *only* a list of names anymore. > >>>> > >>>> synchronous_standby_config? > >>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? > >>> > >>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave > >>> it as is. > >> > >> +1 > > > > +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync > > that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that > > effort. FWIW, +1 from me. > We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica. > > I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it. synchronous_standby_names is wantedly designed so as to accept the old format. This is of couse for backward compatibility and not to add new GUC variable needlessly. And, I suppose that changing the domain of a GUC and changing (only) the name of the varialbe is a bit different things and the latter seems to me to have somewhat larger impact for users. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center